If it is true that everything is different after Sept. 11,
then let us use this moment to reflect on what constitutes a meaningful
education.

In one of my first years of high school teaching, I asked my
students to memorize and recite some lines from "Macbeth," which we
were studying. On the day the memorization assignment was due, one of
the students called out the following lines from her seat:

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.

I then did what I understood to be my job as an English teacher: I
helped the students understand the definitions of the words "struts,"
"frets," and "signifying." I asked them to comment on the central
metaphor, in which "life" is compared to an actor. We pounded out the
rhythm of the lines on our desks, noting that the first, fourth, and
fifth lines do not fall neatly into iambic pentameter and discussing
why Shakespeare might have departed from his norm for these lines. We
had a passably interesting discussion about the meter and the
words.

If it is true that everything is different after Sept.
11, then let us use this moment to reflect on what constitutes a
meaningful education.

Neither I nor my students, however, thought to discuss the heart of
the passage, the real questions being raised here: What are we to make
of human pain and suffering? What meaning does life have? I knew that
English teachers were supposed to teach about figures of speech and
vocabulary, and I knew how to do that. I was neither equipped nor
expected to explore what it means to be human. And so our discussion
stayed safely out of the realm of meaning and morality. Focusing on the
play's external structures rather than on its existential core, I
unfortunately ignored the very elements of the play that I myself find
most important and exciting and that I believe might have held most
interest for my students.

The approach that I took to teaching "Macbeth"—"teaching" the
technical aspects of the subject rather than exploring its significance
for me and my students—is all too familiar to anyone who has
spent time in middle and high school classes. What John Goodlad
reported over a decade ago remains true: the preponderance of classroom
activity involves "listening, reading textbooks, completing workbooks
and worksheets, and taking quizzes"—not discussing important
issues. Across the curriculum, students are graded on "the recall and
feedback of memorized information—multiple choice, true or false,
matching like things, and filling in the missing words or phrases."

As we attempt to make sense of and respond to the tragedies of Sept.
11 and the current war in Afghanistan, we see more clearly how much we
value the ability to think deeply about moral and existential
questions. We see more clearly the importance of our children having
the tools to grapple with the questions that occupy us now—and
that have always formed the core of the subject matters we teach. But
though we cherish the ability to deliberate thoughtfully, most
teachers, myself included, have not conceived of our role as
"facilitators of explorations of moral and existential questions."

Much of the context of schooling today promotes the
idea that school subjects are essentially things-to-know.

We have not seen ourselves in this way partly because it is not
immediately obvious that big, morally charged questions do form
the core of the subjects we teach. Indeed, much of the context of
schooling promotes the idea that school subjects are essentially lists
of things-to-know. As Arthur Applebee asserts in his critique of the
current curriculum, curriculum planning usually begins "with an
inventory of important skills and concepts." In this model, teachers
must be deliverers of information, focused on "covering" material,
focused on particular facts and skills. In the past few years, teachers
have been pressed to deliver the information ever more quickly and
efficiently, to help students pass ubiquitous and fateful standardized
tests.

But if it is true, as so many have said, that everything is
different now, then let us use this moment to reflect on what
constitutes a meaningful education, on what it means to be an educated
person. The truth is that the most important intellectual and moral
achievements require the development of habits of mind—traits
such as empathizing with people whose experience differs from our own,
seeking out multiple strategies to resolve conflict, being able to
collaborate with others, knowing where to find more information, asking
original questions, reflecting on and learning from
experience—that are not fostered by the rush to cover the
contents of our textbooks and syllabuses.

We need not continue to conceive of our curriculum as a long list,
and of the role of teachers as the couriers of the list. Arthur
Applebee suggests conceiving of curriculum as conversation; John Dewey
urged us to connect the record of humanity's great inquiries—the
curriculum—to the curiosities of the child. I would put our
challenge this way: For every subject we teach, we must continually
search for how it matters in our lives, how it links to the questions
of morality and meaning that students, like all human beings,
perennially ask.

Many of these perennial questions are the same questions of morality
and meaning that have taken on special poignancy and urgency in these
grief-filled days of autumn 2001, and these are the questions which
should frame and guide our curriculum and class discussions. As
horrific and shocking as the events of Sept. 11 were, the questions
they raise are the questions that we should always have been exploring
as a part of education for a democracy. As justified and inevitable as
the American response seems to many of us, it too, raises questions
that all American citizens should explore in depth as part of their
education.

The most important intellectual and moral achievements
require habits of mind not fostered by the rush to cover the contents
of our textbooks and syllabuses.

I am not making an argument in favor of relevance over content
knowledge, nor for merely providing room for students to express their
feelings and opinions about these events, as important as that is. I am
arguing that we have operated in schools under the illusion that we can
separate out neutral, academic, intellectual content from
controversial, complex, morally charged questions about life. And this
separation doesn't work. It undercuts the intellectual life of schools,
even as it leaves us ill-equipped to deliberate about moral issues.

Educators have spent so much time in recent years working on
curriculum standards, in many cases laboring over exactly which topics
are worthy of being covered by everyone. Certainly, in the textbooks
written from now on, the attacks of Sept. 11 will be included. But if
they are taught as most of our history is taught, students of the
future will memorize the date, the number of people who died, the names
of the attackers, and perhaps the name of the president in office in
2001.

Now, when things don't seem as certain as they once did, we have an
opportunity to create a different kind of curriculum—one built
around questions—that would simultaneously promote rigorous
intellectual work and the ability to grapple with moral issues.
Questions like these could frame our curriculum: Is killing justified
when the killer believes he or she is pursuing a higher good? What's
the difference between "war" and "terrorism"? What is race and how does
it matter in our society and in the world? What are the tensions
between freedom and security? Are there scientific advances that are
simply too dangerous for us as a society to pursue? Investigations of
such questions might include very wide-ranging content, from history,
literature, and science.

Whatever the particular sets of content studied under such
overarching questions, these explorations would demand careful
garnering of evidence and would provide practice in its interpretation.
They would help students come to see the difference between having an
opinion and having an informed opinion—and the difference between
learning history, literature, and science and learning from
history, literature and science. We have an opportunity to think about
all of our teaching—far beyond conversations about the current
crisis—as the way in which our society helps young people deepen
their understanding of themselves as human beings and develops their
capacity for moral deliberation and action.

Using what Theodore Sizer has called "essential questions" to frame
courses is not a new idea. But what seems more clear than ever is that
the questions essential to an understanding of the subjects we teach
are largely moral and existential questions. This means that teachers
must be ready and willing to delve into moral matters, far more than I
was when I taught "Macbeth." A brief story highlights the point:

In a 9th grade English class I visited, the students were studying
Elie Wiesel's Night, a memoir of the author's experience in a
Nazi concentration camp. A student, Gary, raised his hand to ask, "How
can Elie Wiesel still believe? How is it possible for anyone to believe
in God after the Holocaust?" The teacher told him that it was a very
important question—and he should bring it up with his
clergyperson. The teacher went on to point out symbolism in Mr.
Wiesel's work. The class had a few minutes at the end of the period to
continue reading.

We have an opportunity to think about teaching as a
way in which our society helps young people deepen their
understanding of themselves as human beings.

The emphasis in this literature class was clearly on recognizing and
being able to name themes from the text, not on grappling personally
with those themes. The teacher did not see it as her role to discuss in
a more personal way Gary's and Elie Wiesel's implied questions: Why do
human beings hurt and kill one another? What does this imply about God?
What does it mean for me, as I witness cruelty and suffering? What does
it mean for me as I grapple with understanding my own connection, if
any, with my "enemies" and with God? English class has been the forum
for analyzing literature, not for examining one's own beliefs.

Teachers are not clergy. They neither have special training nor
generally consider themselves experts in the problem of suffering in
the world or in other moral questions. It is not surprising that
teachers would be reluctant to tread this ground, especially in the
public sphere, and especially when there are tests to prepare for. But
if we care about supporting and encouraging students to use their minds
well, we must face the irony of avoiding hard questions and
sticking only to the facts at school.

Our task is to find a way to conceive of the subject areas so that
teachers—in their capacity as thinking, feeling human beings with
a love and understanding of their disciplines—can feel
comfortable engaging themselves and their students in these questions.
It's a moment for us to get more serious about what education
means.

We all—teachers, students, citizens—want to understand
this wrenching, frightening, beautiful, awe-inspiring world. School
could be a place where, wrestling with questions that matter, we begin
to make sense of our lives.

Katherine G. Simon is the director of research at the Coalition
of Essential Schools, where she leads seminars in "Essential Moral
Questions." She is also the author of Moral Questions in the Classroom:
How to Get Kids to Think Deeply About Real Life and Their Schoolwork,
published this month by Yale University Press. She can be reached via
www.essentialschools.org.

Katherine G. Simon is the director of research at the Coalition of
Essential Schools, where she leads seminars in "Essential Moral
Questions." She is also the author of Moral Questions in the Classroom:
How to Get Kids to Think Deeply About Real Life and Their
Schoolwork, published this month by Yale University Press. She can
be reached via www.essentialschools.org.

Vol. 21, Issue 10, Pages 51, 68

Published in Print: November 7, 2001, as Making Room for Moral Questions In the Classroom

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.